On September 7, 2006, the Defendant borrowed KRW 58,000,000 from the Plaintiff and drawn up a money borrowed from the Plaintiff until October 2, 2006 (Evidence A 1).

Around October 8, 2013, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate C with the maturity of repayment on December 7, 2013, and the interest rate of 6.5% per month (650,000 won per month, 1,300,000 won per month).

On October 11, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,00 from the Plaintiff’s account to D account.

On December 3, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 650,000 into the Plaintiff’s account.

[Reasons] No dispute over Gap's claim for loans of KRW 58,00,00,00 as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the ground for claim as a whole, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 58,00,00 to the defendant, as stated in the above monetary loan contract (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case").

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant paid KRW 650,000 to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013 with interest on the total amount of the instant loan and other loans borrowed from the Plaintiff. As such, the statute of limitations for the instant loan was interrupted.

On September 7, 2006, the Defendant drafted a monetary loan contract of KRW 1,000,000 (Evidence 5) and a monetary loan contract of KRW 3,500,000 on August 1, 2008, and these certificates of borrowing can be deemed to have been renewed including the instant loan, and the statute of limitations was interrupted.

The Defendant, in addition to the instant loan, has promised to prepare a loan certificate and repay the Plaintiff’s debt on several occasions. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is not allowed in violation of the good faith principle.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant prepared the loan contract of this case, or that money is actually paid from the plaintiff.